The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent no.1-petitioner, being an employee of an Associated College of Lucknow University, is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment as per the provisions of Fundamental Rule 81-B (1)(xii) of the Financial Handbook, and the State Government's failure to issue specific Government Orders does not disentitle her from seeking the benefit of leave encashment.

JUDGMENT :

Order on C.M. Application No. 02 of 2022

(Application for Condonation of Delay)

1. Heard learned State counsel representing the appellant- State authorities, Sri Pradeep Chandola and Sri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1- petitioner and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay has sufficiently been explained.

3. Accordingly the application is allowed and the delay in preferring the special appeal is hereby condoned.

Order on Special Appeal

1. Heard the learned counsel representing the respective parties and perused the record available before us on this special appeal.

2. By means of this intra-court appeal instituted under the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule V of the Rules of the Court, the State authorities have laid a challenge to the judgment and order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 24316 (SS) of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1- petitioner was allowed with a direction to the appellant - State authorities to provide her benefit of leave encashment. Learned Single Judge while allowing the said writ petition and ordering to extend the benefit of leave encashment to the respondent no.1-petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by another learned Single Judge, dated 27.05.2019 rendered in the case of Ram Kumar and others versus State of UP and others; Writ-A No.62389 of 2014.

3. Impeaching the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge, learned State counsel has vehmentaly argued that the judgment and order under appeal herein is erroneous and as a matter of fact the judgment rendered by the Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) requires a re-look for the reason that the relevant provisions contained in the Financial Handbook which govern leave rules and matter related thereto, including leave encashment, have not been taken into consideration by learned Single Judge while deciding the case of Ram Kumar (supra). It has been argued by learned State counsel that in terms of provisions contained in Fundamental Rules 81-B (1)(xii) of the Financial Handbook (Volume II, Part II to IV), in absence of any Government Orders having been issued by the State Government allowing leave encashment to an employee of an Associated College of Lucknow University, the respondent no.1-petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit. It has, thus, been argued that this aspect of the matter does not appear to have been considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) and accordingly it is not only that the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) is erroneous but also that reliance placed by learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal herein also suffers from the said error.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1-petitioner has submitted that the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) is based on elaborate discussion of the provisions contained in the U.P. State Universities Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1973 Act), the first Statutes of the University concerned and the provision of Fundamental Rules 58 to 104 including sub-Rule 1 and 2 of Rule 81B, and hence neither the said judgment in the case of Ram Kumar need any re-look, nor the judgment and order under appeal herein warrants any interference by this Court in this Special Appeal.

5. Sri Anurag Kumar Singh representing the University has stated that there is no irregularity in the judgment and order under appeal in this case and the special appeal is thus liable to be dismissed.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel representing the respective parties.

7. Respondent No.1- petitioner was employed with Nari Siksha Niketan Post